i'm left leaning. Peterson is a genius. i don't agree with everything he says, but his argumentation tends to be really poignant and just packed with raw intelligence. this is no exception. Newman did not handle this well either.

__________________Marinated Ventilator

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dank Schrader

id think if you are a virgin by choice, you have probably got the self respect and common sense to wash your butt crack every once in a while

i'm left leaning. Peterson is a genius. i don't agree with everything he says, but his argumentation tends to be really poignant and just packed with raw intelligence. this is no exception. Newman did not handle this well either.

Counterpoint: Fuck no he's not a genius, he's a grifter who knows how to pick his battles and leverages the "Dr." for credibility. He suckers in young men looking for answers, gains their trust with self-help like stuff, and then gives them the Black Lives Matter and feminists are destroying Western civilization explanation for why they can't get a girlfriend.

Also, the way you wrote this makes me wonder if you are genuinely left leaning or wrote that to try and sound unbiased and boost Peterson's credibility. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Counterpoint: Fuck no he's not a genius, he's a grifter who knows how to pick his battles and leverages the "Dr." for credibility. He suckers in young men looking for answers, gains their trust with self-help like stuff, and then gives them the Black Lives Matter and feminists are destroying Western civilization explanation for why they can't get a girlfriend.

Also, the way you wrote this makes me wonder if you are genuinely left leaning or wrote that to try and sound unbiased and boost Peterson's credibility. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Unlike Dead Diary I would identify as FAR left rather than left leaning. I agree with pretty much all of what you say about Peterson, who I overall don't really like, but I appreciate his statements in two ways.

1) He adds a degree of depth to the issues he discusses that is largely absent from popular discourse. He was consistent in this way in this TV debate. When he says that the issue of the gender pay gap is multivalenced and replied to the host, at one point, that it's important to speak about the causes or reasons for the gap. That made him far more radical than Cathy Newman - maybe not as a feminist, but rather as a participant of media discourse - because he was insisting on focusing on root-level causes of social problems rather than Cathy Newman's approach to the issue which was indulging in the outrage generated by the surface effect of knowing that the gender pay gap is a thing and its wrong.

He was saying, essentially, "so there's a gender pay gap but there's perfectly good reasons for it supported by science, and I'll explain them." She was obviously not prepared to speak about these issues in this way. Her method seemed to consist of trying to get him to say something that contradicted something else he said so she could gloat that he's a hypocritical piece of shit. That didn't happen though. If she were properly prepared, she could have possibly argued that all of his reasons for justifying the pay gap or Peterson's other pet issues are rooted in biased social science research. That the history of such research has been rife with such biases going back to their origins and he's simply a modern phrenologist using contemporary research methods to claim the superiority of the white man and the necessity of western civilization as the dominant force in the world.

2) I believe in the fundamental importance of freedom of speech to a free and open society and I think his dedication to that concept is sincere.

While I appreciate those two aspects of Peterson, I also understand that obviously most of his followers are miserable, sniveling hate-dwarfs who don't give a shit about either of those points. His followers are probably the people who say "there's no one more oppressed than white men". Ultimately Peterson represents a conformist position that, while increasingly challenged, is still dominant and the losers who like him want the thrill of feeling like a rebel while watching a trans protester or a woman or someone else who would have been a non-person in recent history put in their place in the name of defending the civilization that's so amazing that it turned its own countries into slaughterhouse infernos many times over and transformed the rest of the world into a capitalist death-camp.

Unlike Dead Diary I would identify as FAR left rather than left leaning. I agree with pretty much all of what you say about Peterson, who I overall don't really like, but I appreciate his statements in two ways.

1) He adds a degree of depth to the issues he discusses that is largely absent from popular discourse. He was consistent in this way in this TV debate. When he says that the issue of the gender pay gap is multivalenced and replied to the host, at one point, that it's important to speak about the causes or reasons for the gap. That made him far more radical than Cathy Newman - maybe not as a feminist, but rather as a participant of media discourse - because he was insisting on focusing on root-level causes of social problems rather than Cathy Newman's approach to the issue which was indulging in the outrage generated by the surface effect of knowing that the gender pay gap is a thing and its wrong.

He was saying, essentially, "so there's a gender pay gap but there's perfectly good reasons for it supported by science, and I'll explain them." She was obviously not prepared to speak about these issues in this way. Her method seemed to consist of trying to get him to say something that contradicted something else he said so she could gloat that he's a hypocritical piece of shit. That didn't happen though. If she were properly prepared, she could have possibly argued that all of his reasons for justifying the pay gap or Peterson's other pet issues are rooted in biased social science research. That the history of such research has been rife with such biases going back to their origins and he's simply a modern phrenologist using contemporary research methods to claim the superiority of the white man and the necessity of western civilization as the dominant force in the world.

2) I believe in the fundamental importance of freedom of speech to a free and open society and I think his dedication to that concept is sincere.

While I appreciate those two aspects of Peterson, I also understand that obviously most of his followers are miserable, sniveling hate-dwarfs who don't give a shit about either of those points. His followers are probably the people who say "there's no one more oppressed than white men". Ultimately Peterson represents a conformist position that, while increasingly challenged, is still dominant and the losers who like him want the thrill of feeling like a rebel while watching a trans protester or a woman or someone else who would have been a non-person in recent history put in their place in the name of defending the civilization that's so amazing that it turned its own countries into slaughterhouse infernos many times over and transformed the rest of the world into a capitalist death-camp.

First, I don't care how badly he bested "Cathy Newman" in a debate. Who the fuck is Cathy Newman. Like I said, he picked his opponent well.

Anyway, as a rule of thumb, if you're an "academic" or a "serious thinker" who is constantly building your brand and selling a bunch of brand-related shit to people, you're probably full of shit. That usually separates the true believers from the grifters. There are exceptions but I see no reason to include him there. He probably sincerely believes that the existing societal set up is one that benefits him and so he has found a new way to preach an old, ruling class perspective that encourages others to help entrench/intensify/allow him to benefit from that set up.

You'll never convince me that people like Peterson actually care about "free speech" and not just "their free speech". I saw when those CPAC conservatives who swore that they were all about protecting unpopular speech uninvited Milo after the pedophilia comments. I don't have any reason to think Peterson is any different. He doesn't come out and say it here, but the implication is pretty clear imo.https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/...542592?lang=en

In one speech, delivered at Harvard and uploaded with the title “The Greatest Speech Every Student Should Hear,” he addressed the idea that the wealthiest 1% of society are hoarding wealth, calling it “absolute rubbish.” The wealthy accumulated what they have through lives of greatness, Peterson said, and if students would only become deserving through rigorous discipline and self-improvement, the 1% would find no greater delight than to hand out opportunities.

Wow, look at how cutting edge and "poignant and packed with raw intelligence" he is by entirely reducing the concept of economic inequality to personal responsibility. I'd feel bad for the people that fall for this shit and buy his merchandise if they weren't going to end up destroying the world for his benefit and our detriment.

First, I don't care how badly he bested "Cathy Newman" in a debate. Who the fuck is Cathy Newman. Like I said, he picked his opponent well.

Anyway, as a rule of thumb, if you're an "academic" or a "serious thinker" who is constantly building your brand and selling a bunch of brand-related shit to people, you're probably full of shit. That usually separates the true believers from the grifters. There are exceptions but I see no reason to include him there. He probably sincerely believes that the existing societal set up is one that benefits him and so he has found a new way to preach an old, ruling class perspective that encourages others to help entrench/intensify/allow him to benefit from that set up.

You'll never convince me that people like Peterson actually care about "free speech" and not just "their free speech". I saw when those CPAC conservatives who swore that they were all about protecting unpopular speech uninvited Milo after the pedophilia comments. I don't have any reason to think Peterson is any different. He doesn't come out and say it here, but the implication is pretty clear imo.https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/...542592?lang=en

Wow, look at how cutting edge and "poignant and packed with raw intelligence" he is by entirely reducing the concept of economic inequality to personal responsibility. I'd feel bad for the people that fall for this shit and buy his merchandise if they weren't going to end up destroying the world for his benefit and our detriment.

Jesus. Your super dramatic. Why not make a solid argument about what you think is wrong with his views, rather than cite articles and hurl implications and insults.

Counterpoint: Fuck no he's not a genius, he's a grifter who knows how to pick his battles and leverages the "Dr." for credibility. He suckers in young men looking for answers, gains their trust with self-help like stuff, and then gives them the Black Lives Matter and feminists are destroying Western civilization explanation for why they can't get a girlfriend.

Also, the way you wrote this makes me wonder if you are genuinely left leaning or wrote that to try and sound unbiased and boost Peterson's credibility. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

i probably should have been clearer.

i don't agree with the vast majority of his political views and conclusions. when i say he's a genius i mean that primarily in regards to his work in psychology and psychoanalysis and the way he conveys his messages. while a lot of what he has to say is pretty obvious and self-evident (tell the truth, confront your weaknesses to beat them, don't allow yourself to be bullied,...) i think it's useful if someone puts these concepts in a greater perspective and brings them to the forefront of the conscious mind.

i have been following his psychological work for some time now and only recently became aware of his political involvement. what i enjoy about him in that regard is that he tends to put things into perspective on a higher level than we usually see in political discourse: he talks about how a certain level of inequality has to be attained and maintained so that our society, at least in its current capitalistic form, "works". this level can't be too high or too low or society collapses. the question is where exactly is that point and he admits that we don't know that. he says it would be desirable for more women to be in positions of power, but we can't start enforcing equality at the top level. not 100% sure i agree with that but fair enough. stuff like that.

however, when he says all ideology is poison, that is part of his ideology, which is quite a radical ideology overall so that oviously doesn't make much sense. "you can become anything you want to be" can be an inspiring message, but is also a lie. saying there is more difference within groups than between groups is true, but doesn't at all address the problem of systemic racism and sexism, which no doubt exists. and so on and so forth.

__________________Marinated Ventilator

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dank Schrader

id think if you are a virgin by choice, you have probably got the self respect and common sense to wash your butt crack every once in a while

i have been following his psychological work for some time now and only recently became aware of his political involvement. what i enjoy about him in that regard is that he tends to put things into perspective on a higher level than we usually see in political discourse: he talks about how a certain level of inequality has to be attained and maintained so that our society, at least in its current capitalistic form, "works". this level can't be too high or too low or society collapses. the question is where exactly is that point and he admits that we don't know that. he says it would be desirable for more women to be in positions of power, but we can't start enforcing equality at the top level. not 100% sure i agree with that but fair enough. stuff like that.

however, when he says all ideology is poison, that is part of his ideology, which is quite a radical ideology overall so that oviously doesn't make much sense. "you can become anything you want to be" can be an inspiring message, but is also a lie. saying there is more difference within groups than between groups is true, but doesn't at all address the problem of systemic racism and sexism, which no doubt exists. and so on and so forth.

2 critiques. He says especially that attaining equality of opportunity and outcome isn't possible at the same time. So if you go for equality of outcome equal opportunities have to be sacrificed.

That last part of your post is kinda nonsense. Because he says neither of the things you think he said. Cathy Newman much?

He suckers in young men looking for answers, gains their trust with self-help like stuff, and then gives them the Black Lives Matter and feminists are destroying Western civilization explanation for why they can't get a girlfriend.

peterson's content emphasizes the vitality of personal responsibility and outwardly condemns complaining and blaming others for your position if you have the capability to help yourself. if a frustrated virgin seeks refuge in peterson's message, it's because he misunderstands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetPaid

Also, the way you wrote this makes me wonder if you are genuinely left leaning or wrote that to try and sound unbiased and boost Peterson's credibility. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

you can be liberal and progressive idealist and still find it difficult to align yourself with modern progressives because of disturbing trends within the group. i stand with everything Dear Diary said in his post (maybe not what he believes). shoutout to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetPaid

First, I don't care how badly he bested "Cathy Newman" in a debate. Who the fuck is Cathy Newman. Like I said, he picked his opponent well.

cathy newman is a representation of the common progressive's approach to reasoning. peterson did pick his opponent well (if you can even say that, considering the platform asked him to come on). is she an intelligent progressive? not at all, but their interaction is a great representation of the disturbing motivations behind modern progressivism (not the most honorable or most intellectual motivations that exist, although, the reality is a lot of progressives think and attack opposition the way newman does).

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetPaid

He probably sincerely believes that the existing societal set up is one that benefits him and so he has found a new way to preach an old, ruling class perspective that encourages others to help entrench/intensify/allow him to benefit from that set up.

correct me if i'm wrong. the only ruling class peterson has endorsed is one that's determined by a competence hierarchy and the will of people to pursue what they desire. that's good. we seek competence hierarchies and autonomy every day. that's how micro and macro structures function well. there are flaws with the system's implementation that certainly disadvantage groups of people, though. i haven't heard peterson perspective on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetPaid

You'll never convince me that people like Peterson actually care about "free speech" and not just "their free speech". I saw when those CPAC conservatives who swore that they were all about protecting unpopular speech uninvited Milo after the pedophilia comments. I don't have any reason to think Peterson is any different. He doesn't come out and say it here, but the implication is pretty clear imo.https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/...542592?lang=en

protecting unpopular political opinions that aren't inherently bigoted and making the personal and political decision to separate from another's making light of child molestation are not mutually exclusive ideas. also, that tweet does not go into detail about the hypothetical AI system, so it's hard to comment on it. the project is suspect, though.

First, I don't care how badly he bested "Cathy Newman" in a debate. Who the fuck is Cathy Newman. Like I said, he picked his opponent well.

I didn't write all that to celebrate his debate victory over Cathy Newman. I only knew that woman's name was Cathy Newman from the thread title - and I'm trying to distance my own thoughts about this video from all of the idiots who are vicariously excited to see a liberal, a woman liberal, get 'destroyed'.

The point I'm trying to make is that Peterson's approach to these issues is deeper than the typical discourse constructed by popular media. His perspective might be easily refuted by someone knowledgeable but not by someone who only has outrage on their side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetPaid

Anyway, as a rule of thumb, if you're an "academic" or a "serious thinker" who is constantly building your brand and selling a bunch of brand-related shit to people, you're probably full of shit. That usually separates the true believers from the grifters.

You'll have to explain this a little more. I'm interpreting this statement to mean that you believe there's no such thing as a public intellectual but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'building your brand'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetPaid

He probably sincerely believes that the existing societal set up is one that benefits him and so he has found a new way to preach an old, ruling class perspective that encourages others to help entrench/intensify/allow him to benefit from that set up.

Oh I totally agree with this, and he's not unique among intellectuals in doing this. Much of the social sciences is devoted to preserving and justifying prevailing heirarchies, hegemonies, and institutional arrangements.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetPaid

You'll never convince me that people like Peterson actually care about "free speech" and not just "their free speech". I saw when those CPAC conservatives who swore that they were all about protecting unpopular speech uninvited Milo after the pedophilia comments. I don't have any reason to think Peterson is any different. He doesn't come out and say it here, but the implication is pretty clear imo.https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/...542592?lang=en

Ugh, okay, I admittedly don't really know much about Peterson beyond this interview and a couple other things I've heard about him. I have a hard time reconciling image of free-speech fundamentalist with the figure of the mid-20th century anti-communist witchhunter. I might have to stand corrected on this note.

Wow, look at how cutting edge and "poignant and packed with raw intelligence" he is by entirely reducing the concept of economic inequality to personal responsibility. I'd feel bad for the people that fall for this shit and buy his merchandise if they weren't going to end up destroying the world for his benefit and our detriment.

Ok, this is sort of what I'm getting at though. He's supporting a prevailing ideology, the notion that economic inequality is a result of personal responsibility, which most people believe without thinking about it, with research and intellectually grounded reasoning. You might disagree, but disagrement and outrage isn't enough to refute his arguments - you have to attack the research and the reasoning.

Jesus. Your super dramatic. Why not make a solid argument about what you think is wrong with his views, rather than cite articles and hurl implications and insults.

There it is, the classic "your emotional arguments could never stand up to my superior logic and reason" line most commonly espoused by huge nerds with hidden agendas.

There is no argument that you would consider "solid" that is anti-Peterson, I've picked that up in three sentences. Go roleplay a lobster.

@zonal I hear you and you make good points and I can't disagree on a lot of it now that I better understand what you are saying. But the thing is, if someone genuinely has bought into the idea that class/racial/gender inequality is good, there's not much debate you can do with them. You would be arguing using two fundamentally different value systems, pro- and anti-equality. Because it's clear there is a ton of frustration and anger in the world right now with the status quo (as there should be), and Peterson is offering up an appealing set of views for disenfranchised young white guys and giving them an enemy they can organize against and blame for their issues ("postmodernism"). It's tough to combat that with arguments and debates, because they are right to be angry, just misplacing the anger. The part I quoted was more for people on the fence who might believe equality is a worthwhile ideal, not for true believers like this person I'm replying to.

people seem to splooge about this dude the same way they did about Christopher Hitchens (who I liked read 3 or 4 of his books, mortality his last one is really worth it + the Clinton and Kissinger ones too) the internet is inhabited by middle class politically correct word policers who are ready to jump on any perceived homophobia, racism etc.

but I don't get what's so radical about saying in hip-hop terms 'do you, make money' + people Stan so hard for these types of dudes - he's not your dad.

I would go in to detail as to why my comment makes sense but I'd rather not at the moment because you are rude and come across as a butthurt women studies major with a salary of 15k.

And yes, I'll take fries with that you stupid peasant pissant

Hi Profess.

Usually when someone says "the real question is..." they're responding to a question.

There was no question, however, because it's obvious that your statements in your previous post were the very simplistic prejudicial views, the kind of rabidly angry reject mind Peterson appeals to, presumably because his intellectually grounded statements give some weight to what are otherwise idiotic paranoid projections.

I'm sure you were very happy that I called your comment 'stupid', because its obviously your justification for not going into detailt, which I don't believe you can, and instead toss out multiple childish insults. Talk about 'bent out of shape'! It's funny, I say your comment is shallow and make a matter of fact statement about Peterson and you're instantly set-off at full rage internet monster mode complete with 4chan slang.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that 'women's studies' is on your list as one of those mere breeding grounds for activists.

I'm also going to go ahead and guess that you DON'T hold a degree in any of the sciences.

Usually when someone says "the real question is..." they're responding to a question.

There was no question, however, because it's obvious that your statements in your previous post were the very simplistic prejudicial views, the kind of rabidly angry reject mind Peterson appeals to, presumably because his intellectually grounded statements give some weight to what are otherwise idiotic paranoid projections.

I'm sure you were very happy that I called your comment 'stupid', because its obviously your justification for not going into detailt, which I don't believe you can, and instead toss out multiple childish insults. Talk about 'bent out of shape'! It's funny, I say your comment is shallow and make a matter of fact statement about Peterson and you're instantly set-off at full rage internet monster mode complete with 4chan slang.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that 'women's studies' is on your list as one of those mere breeding grounds for activists.

I'm also going to go ahead and guess that you DON'T hold a degree in any of the sciences.

Yep ya certainly did trigger me by calling my comment stupid. Not really a good way to get a detailed response. To be honest, this shit is complicated. The point is that something is rotten in Denmark and Peterson could explain it better then I can. I think its an interesting debate .. Even better when he goes on a popular podcast and discusses it for mainstream consumption. But I'll give it a shot.. Explaining what I was paraphrasing.. A lot of ideas are based in science and they get down talked for cultural reasons. Much of that is to be politically correct.. These things go in waves.. Things like the 2nd wave of feminism were successful for a reason but I'm some cases have gone too far.. I think things will balence out in time.

Never seen this Jordan Peterson guy before but I have heard of him and heard a few people say they don't like him. Reading the comments on here I was expecting this guy to be some kind of Nazi or something lol. The only one who really annoyed me here was Cathy Newman, wtf what a terrible interviewer. Way too confrontational, terrible questions. Every question was "OH SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS!?!" "OH SO THEN YOU'RE SAYING THIS THING YOU DIDN'T SAY!?!!?!". What kind of interview is this? This is the only interview I've seen of Peterson and I didn't really find anything that bad from him.

__________________I couldn't believe it was her. It was like a dream. But there she was, just as I remembered her. That delicately beautiful face. And a body that could melt a cheese sandwich from across the room. And breasts that seemed to say... "Hey! Look at these!" She was the kind of woman who made you want to drop to your knees and thank God you were a man! She reminded me of my mother, all right. No doubt about it.

His followers are probably the people who say "there's no one more oppressed than white men". Ultimately Peterson represents a conformist position that, while increasingly challenged, is still dominant and the losers who like him want the thrill of feeling like a rebel while watching a trans protester or a woman or someone else who would have been a non-person in recent history put in their place in the name of defending the civilization that's so amazing that it turned its own countries into slaughterhouse infernos many times over and transformed the rest of the world into a capitalist death-camp.

How do the capitalist death camps compare to Stalin or Mao's?

Peterson isn't about putting trans or women in their place. In fact it isn't about that at all. If you listen to his talks he is not anti women or anti trans. To be honest I come from a Buddhist perspective and find very little that he says to be counter to a Buddhist world view.

What exactly is his conformist position? He is against identity politics and believes that the individual is far more important than any group that you, or society, puts one into.

Wow, look at how cutting edge and "poignant and packed with raw intelligence" he is by entirely reducing the concept of economic inequality to personal responsibility. I'd feel bad for the people that fall for this shit and buy his merchandise if they weren't going to end up destroying the world for his benefit and our detriment.

Did you watch the youtube video? Or did you make a completely inaccurate representation of his opinions based on someone's recap of a video? This is the problem with people that seem to be against Peterson. They don't actually argue any of the points he makes.

First, I don't care how badly he bested "Cathy Newman" in a debate. Who the fuck is Cathy Newman. Like I said, he picked his opponent well.

Anyway, as a rule of thumb, if you're an "academic" or a "serious thinker" who is constantly building your brand and selling a bunch of brand-related shit to people, you're probably full of shit. That usually separates the true believers from the grifters. There are exceptions but I see no reason to include him there. He probably sincerely believes that the existing societal set up is one that benefits him and so he has found a new way to preach an old, ruling class perspective that encourages others to help entrench/intensify/allow him to benefit from that set up.

You'll never convince me that people like Peterson actually care about "free speech" and not just "their free speech". I saw when those CPAC conservatives who swore that they were all about protecting unpopular speech uninvited Milo after the pedophilia comments. I don't have any reason to think Peterson is any different. He doesn't come out and say it here, but the implication is pretty clear imo.https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/...542592?lang=en

Wow, look at how cutting edge and "poignant and packed with raw intelligence" he is by entirely reducing the concept of economic inequality to personal responsibility. I'd feel bad for the people that fall for this shit and buy his merchandise if they weren't going to end up destroying the world for his benefit and our detriment.

You don't seem that capable of relating your opinion to the factual foundations.

Peterson has been a tenured professor for sometime after working at i believe Harvard. He's an absolute academic - making any kind of criticism of his credentials sort of shows where your bias is coming form. I understnad what you're saying though, that if you need marketing its probably not worth its salt, but in this case that's just flat-out not true. He was already an incredibly well respected academic prior to any of his fame or marketing.

Saw this a few weeks ago when it was on TV in the UK, never heard of the guy before but all his followers seem like saltiest basement dweller Joe Rogan Podcast mens rights weirdos.

That's weird that you didn't actually mention anything about the interview and just had a go at his fans...... Unfortunately, you're not completely wrong but they're just sprinkled in among people who are actually pretty well-read, intelligent, observant etc.... But that's true of almost all groups/fan bases.

Peterson isn't about putting trans or women in their place. In fact it isn't about that at all. If you listen to his talks he is not anti women or anti trans. To be honest I come from a Buddhist perspective and find very little that he says to be counter to a Buddhist world view.

What exactly is his conformist position? He is against identity politics and believes that the individual is far more important than any group that you, or society, puts one into.

Look, I'm not communist so I'm not going to defend Stalin or Mao but I will say that there's no better way to expose yourself as a narrow-minded acritical thinker than to respond with a reactionary "what about them though, the other guys, they're worse don't you think?"

It just leads me to think that you really just don't know what else to say about this subject. When you ask "how can you even compare this one bloody, oppressive system to this other supposedly bloody and oppressive system," it also suggests that you're ok with oppression and suffering as long as you can point to something that's worse.

It's funny to me that you pose your statement, which was basically, "Communism has killed more than capitalism:" as a question for me to answer, a question of comparison, no less. How do all the various death camps of the world compare? Do you know? Obviously a lot of people have died under Stalin and Mao but, if your preference lies with whichever system has killed fewer people and caused less suffering, can you be confident that you're on the right side and that your preferred system has held up their end?

Can you be certain that the global holocaust of European colonialism, which is the foundation for global capitalism and includes the two world wars, dozens of genocides, famines, slavery, and extends right up to the recent wars in the middle east, Mexican drug wars, enormous US prison population, global environmental devastation which always has a human impact - is the right choice? Or is all your trying to say is that maybe all that is bad but supporting Stalin is worse? As if anyone really supports Stalin and Mao.

I doubt you have thought about this very much if you're only concept of a leftist is a supporter of Stalin - that's pretty much Basic Level Cold War first-world ideology. Such a shallow viewpoint comes from the 1950s anti-left propaganda.

You basically described exactly the way that Peterson is conformist when you asked me how he's conformist, so I don't really see you as thinking critically about the culture and society you live in and obviously still forms your ways of thinking.

Privileging of the individual is the DOMINANT MODE OF SOCIAL SUBJECTIVITY in our culture - this is reinforced everywhere all the time: from advertisements to the language around job-hunting (where you're always asked to market yourself as a brand) and this is also reinforced in identity politics. This is how he is conformist. Peterson chooses opponents that gives him the opportunity to posture as a rebel when he is simply supporting all of the most taken-for-granted positions of our culture. He can find these opponents easily because he works at a university, one of the only contexts where such positions are challenged in any meaningful way.

As for whether or not Peterson is about putting trans and women in their place. I didn't say he was about that.

I find these responses to my statements about Peterson - from Profess, and now from you, to be very interesting because they're very close to the sort of reactionary, ideologically cliched, empty, but seemingly morally probing, approach Cathy Newman took when she debated Peterson.

Look, I'm not communist so I'm not going to defend Stalin or Mao but I will say that there's no better way to expose yourself as a narrow-minded acritical thinker than to respond with a reactionary "what about them though, the other guys, they're worse don't you think?"

It just leads me to think that you really just don't know what else to say about this subject. When you ask "how can you even compare this one bloody, oppressive system to this other supposedly bloody and oppressive system," it also suggests that you're ok with oppression and suffering as long as you can point to something that's worse.

It's funny to me that you pose your statement, which was basically, "Communism has killed more than capitalism:" as a question for me to answer, a question of comparison, no less. How do all the various death camps of the world compare? Do you know? Obviously a lot of people have died under Stalin and Mao but, if your preference lies with whichever system has killed fewer people and caused less suffering, can you be confident that you're on the right side and that your preferred system has held up their end?

Can you be certain that the global holocaust of European colonialism, which is the foundation for global capitalism and includes the two world wars, dozens of genocides, famines, slavery, and extends right up to the recent wars in the middle east, Mexican drug wars, enormous US prison population, global environmental devastation which always has a human impact - is the right choice? Or is all your trying to say is that maybe all that is bad but supporting Stalin is worse? As if anyone really supports Stalin and Mao.

I doubt you have thought about this very much if you're only concept of a leftist is a supporter of Stalin - that's pretty much Basic Level Cold War first-world ideology. Such a shallow viewpoint comes from the 1950s anti-left propaganda.

You basically described exactly the way that Peterson is conformist when you asked me how he's conformist, so I don't really see you as thinking critically about the culture and society you live in and obviously still forms your ways of thinking.

Privileging of the individual is the DOMINANT MODE OF SOCIAL SUBJECTIVITY in our culture - this is reinforced everywhere all the time: from advertisements to the language around job-hunting (where you're always asked to market yourself as a brand) and this is also reinforced in identity politics. This is how he is conformist. Peterson chooses opponents that gives him the opportunity to posture as a rebel when he is simply supporting all of the most taken-for-granted positions of our culture. He can find these opponents easily because he works at a university, one of the only contexts where such positions are challenged in any meaningful way.

As for whether or not Peterson is about putting trans and women in their place. I didn't say he was about that.

I find these responses to my statements about Peterson - from Profess, and now from you, to be very interesting because they're very close to the sort of reactionary, ideologically cliched, empty, but seemingly morally probing, approach Cathy Newman took when she debated Peterson.

I didn't say that Stalin was a good representation of the left, but I don't think your capitalist death camps is a good representation of capitalism either. I don't really think that European colonialism can be blamed on capitalism more than Stalin can be blamed on liberal thinking.

Capitalism isn't perfect but it seems to be the best we have right now. I can't think of a system that has worked to bring people out of poverty more than capitalism.

But either way I am left of center. I believe in more taxes on the rich and companies to fund social programs for the poor. Universal health care should be implemented. Private prisons should be abolished. I am pro gay marriage and abortion rights. I believe that all people should be respected and should not be discriminated against for gender, race, or sexual preference. But I also don't agree with every issue that women or minorities have being social. Maybe women aren't in stem fields because they don't want to go into stem fields as much. Pharmacists need Doctorates, have starting salaries around 6 figures, and there are more women than men in that field. Maybe some of the issues that minorities have are cultural issues we have with race, but maybe not all of them. But even if they are cultural issues playing the victim is not going to help.

I believe that there is white privilege, but it is worth far less of a privilege than other types of privilege that people tend not to talk about. Things like high intelligence, good families, high conscientiousness, low negative emotions, etc. These are things that people are either born with or are shaped early on in their development by their surroundings that have little to do with a person's own life choices.

Look, I'm not communist so I'm not going to defend Stalin or Mao but I will say that there's no better way to expose yourself as a narrow-minded acritical thinker than to respond with a reactionary "what about them though, the other guys, they're worse don't you think?"

It just leads me to think that you really just don't know what else to say about this subject. When you ask "how can you even compare this one bloody, oppressive system to this other supposedly bloody and oppressive system," it also suggests that you're ok with oppression and suffering as long as you can point to something that's worse.

It's funny to me that you pose your statement, which was basically, "Communism has killed more than capitalism:" as a question for me to answer, a question of comparison, no less. How do all the various death camps of the world compare? Do you know? Obviously a lot of people have died under Stalin and Mao but, if your preference lies with whichever system has killed fewer people and caused less suffering, can you be confident that you're on the right side and that your preferred system has held up their end?

Can you be certain that the global holocaust of European colonialism, which is the foundation for global capitalism and includes the two world wars, dozens of genocides, famines, slavery, and extends right up to the recent wars in the middle east, Mexican drug wars, enormous US prison population, global environmental devastation which always has a human impact - is the right choice? Or is all your trying to say is that maybe all that is bad but supporting Stalin is worse? As if anyone really supports Stalin and Mao.

I doubt you have thought about this very much if you're only concept of a leftist is a supporter of Stalin - that's pretty much Basic Level Cold War first-world ideology. Such a shallow viewpoint comes from the 1950s anti-left propaganda.

You basically described exactly the way that Peterson is conformist when you asked me how he's conformist, so I don't really see you as thinking critically about the culture and society you live in and obviously still forms your ways of thinking.

Privileging of the individual is the DOMINANT MODE OF SOCIAL SUBJECTIVITY in our culture - this is reinforced everywhere all the time: from advertisements to the language around job-hunting (where you're always asked to market yourself as a brand) and this is also reinforced in identity politics. This is how he is conformist. Peterson chooses opponents that gives him the opportunity to posture as a rebel when he is simply supporting all of the most taken-for-granted positions of our culture. He can find these opponents easily because he works at a university, one of the only contexts where such positions are challenged in any meaningful way.

As for whether or not Peterson is about putting trans and women in their place. I didn't say he was about that.

I find these responses to my statements about Peterson - from Profess, and now from you, to be very interesting because they're very close to the sort of reactionary, ideologically cliched, empty, but seemingly morally probing, approach Cathy Newman took when she debated Peterson.

To be honest I don't think that zonal has actually listened to Jordan Peterson at all. I think he has just heard second hand critiques of him. He has not specifically argued any points Peterson has made, just said he disagrees with overarching themes that don't even seem like an accurate representation of Peterson.

"In one speech, delivered at Harvard and uploaded with the title “The Greatest Speech Every Student Should Hear,” he addressed the idea that the wealthiest 1% of society are hoarding wealth, calling it “absolute rubbish.” The wealthy accumulated what they have through lives of greatness, Peterson said, and if students would only become deserving through rigorous discipline and self-improvement, the 1% would find no greater delight than to hand out opportunities."

I just want to clarify something. He was giving this speech to students at Harvard. Puts a whole different spin on it when you think about the average student at harvard being probably in the top 1% academically of all college students in the world. This is the problem with bashing Peterson like this. If you take his stuff out of context it looks different than it is.

To be honest I don't think that zonal has actually listened to Jordan Peterson at all. I think he has just heard second hand critiques of him. He has not specifically argued any points Peterson has made, just said he disagrees with overarching themes that don't even seem like an accurate representation of Peterson.

this convo hurts my weiner, taking the inverse of naive liberal positions i.e. the 1% deserve what they have, have earned it etc. does not a convincing argument make (as an absolutist mantra it's stupid as saying they're all, without exception, total cunts)